In August 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) amended its Guidance for Grants and Agreements set forth under 2 CFR (commonly referred to as the “Uniform Guidance”).  The Covington team wrote about that amendment, and in particular, the implementation of Section 889 requirements, here.  Now, almost three years later, OMB is requesting feedback in anticipation of further amending the Uniform Guidance. 

Last month, OMB published a federal register notice announcing their plan to update the Uniform Guidance in December 2023 and soliciting input from individuals and organizations to help shape this proposed amendment.  As part of this request for information, OMB shared the following goals for their forthcoming revision:

  1. Revise guidance to incorporate statutory requirements and administration priorities;
  2. Revise guidance to reduce agency and recipient burden;
  3. Clarify guidance by addressing sections that recipients or agencies have interpreted in different ways; and
  4. Clarify guidance by rewriting applicable sections in plain English, improving flow, and addressing inconsistent use of terms.

OMB has indicated that the revisions are not expected to result in a complete restructuring of the Uniform Guidance, and that OMB intends to maintain the overall structure of 2 CFR, including section numbers.

OMB invites organizations to provide examples of how they are impacted by particular sections of the Uniform Guidance, offer alternative language, and attach data, reports, articles and other source material demonstrating the benefits of their proposed alternative language.  The federal register notice explains that while certain parts of the Uniform Guidance reflect statutory requirements and will not be updated, certain sections are specifically under consideration for amendment, including:

  • Part 25: Universal Identifier and Systems for Award Managements;
  • Part 170: Reporting Subaward and Executive Compensation Information; and
  • Part 200: Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.

The comment submission portal accepts comments up to 5,000 characters in length with up to twenty supporting attachments.  The current deadline for comment submission is March 13th, although at least two organizations have already submitted comments requesting an extension of this deadline.

In light of the struggles that many grant recipients have faced in recent years interpreting and applying the requirements in the Uniform Guidance, this request for input presents a welcome opportunity to convey areas for improvement to OMB.  Grant recipients should consider whether there are areas of the Uniform Guidance that could be highlighted for revision to reduce administrative burden, eliminate inconsistencies, or clarify vague or ambiguous requirements.  The Covington team will continue to monitor developments in this space and is available to assist with the comment submission process or to help with federal financial assistance compliance more generally.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Jennifer Plitsch Jennifer Plitsch

Jennifer Plitsch leads the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group, where she works with clients on a broad range of issues arising from both defense and civilian contracts including contract proposal, performance, and compliance questions as well as litigation, transactional, and legislative issues.

She…

Jennifer Plitsch leads the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group, where she works with clients on a broad range of issues arising from both defense and civilian contracts including contract proposal, performance, and compliance questions as well as litigation, transactional, and legislative issues.

She has particular expertise in advising clients on intellectual property and data rights issues under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and obligations imposed by the Bayh-Dole Act, including march-in and substantial domestic manufacturing. Jen also has significant experience in negotiation and compliance under non-traditional government agreements including Other Transaction Authority agreements (OTAs), Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs), Cooperative Agreements, Grants, and Small Business Innovation Research agreements.

For over 20 years, Jen’s practice has focused on advising clients in the pharmaceutical, biologics and medical device industry on all aspects of both commercial and non-commercial agreements with various government agencies including:

  • the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA);
  • the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC);
  • the Department of Defense (DoD), including the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical Biological Defense (JPEO-CBRN); and
  • the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

She regularly advises on the development, production, and supply to the government of vaccines and other medical countermeasures addressing threats such as COVID-19, Ebola, Zika, MERS-CoV, Smallpox, seasonal and pandemic influenza, tropical diseases, botulinum toxin, nerve agents, and radiation events. In addition, for commercial drugs, biologics, and medical devices, Jen advises on Federal Supply Schedule contracts, including the complex pricing requirements imposed on products under the Veterans Health Care Act, as well as on the obligations imposed by participation in the 340B Drug Pricing program.

Jen also has significant experience in domestic sourcing compliance under the Buy American Act (BAA) and the Trade Agreements Act (TAA), including regulatory analysis and comments, certifications, investigations, and disclosures (including under the Acetris decision and Biden Administration Executive Orders). She also advises on prevailing wage requirements, including those imposed through the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Labor Standards.

Photo of Paul Rowley Paul Rowley

Paul’s experience includes:

  • Assisting clients with due diligence aspects of M&A transactions involving government contractors;
  • Counseling companies on the protection of intellectual property, small and disadvantaged business requirements, and other regulatory frameworks;
  • Crafting and revising clients’ government contracting policies and procedures;
  • Negotiating subcontracts

Paul’s experience includes:

  • Assisting clients with due diligence aspects of M&A transactions involving government contractors;
  • Counseling companies on the protection of intellectual property, small and disadvantaged business requirements, and other regulatory frameworks;
  • Crafting and revising clients’ government contracting policies and procedures;
  • Negotiating subcontracts with higher and lower-tier contractors; and
  • Representing contractors in adversarial matters, including disputes, protests and other litigious and administrative proceedings.